Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 1910–2024 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Harris County Flood Control District v. Great American Insurance Co.green1 sentence2024Flood Control Dist., 359 S.W.3d at 747 (concluding, “governmental immunity bars the equitable-subrogation claim in which Great American seeks recovery beyond what the District owes under the Handex Contract as well as the waste claim that sounds in tort”). | 1 | 1 |
King's Court Racquetball v. Dawkinsgreen1 sentence2018Because the tenant has such a duty, its breach constitutes waste.” King’s Court Racquetball v. Dawkins, 62 S.W.3d 229, 233 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, -6- 04-18-00418-CV no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
Porras v. Craiggreen1 sentence2015See Hall v. Hubco, Inc., 292 S.W.3d 22, 35 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, pet. denied) (op. on reh’g); cf. Porras v. Craig, 675 S.W.2d 503, 504 (Tex. 25 1984) (When injury to land is permanent, damages are measured by loss in market value.). | 1 | 1 |
Hall v. Hubco, Inc.green1 sentence2015See Hall v. Hubco, Inc., 292 S.W.3d 22, 35 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, pet. denied) (op. on reh’g); cf. Porras v. Craig, 675 S.W.2d 503, 504 (Tex. 25 1984) (When injury to land is permanent, damages are measured by loss in market value.). | 1 | 1 |
Wagner & Brown, Ltd. v. Horwoodgreen1 sentence2005Statutes of limitations are intended to compel plaintiffs to assert their claims “within a reasonable period of time while the evidence is fresh in the minds of the parties and witnesses.” Wagner & Brown, Ltd. v. Horwood, 58 S.W.3d 732, 734 (Tex.2001) (citing Computer Assocs. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Brock v. Dole
green
2 sentences1910The court in the case referred to cites Brock v. Dole ( 66 Wis., 142 ; 28 N. W., 334 ), as a case calling for the proper application of the doctrine of waste. 1910The court in the case referred to cites Brock v. Dole ( 66 Wis., 142 ; 28 N. W., 334 ), as a case calling for the proper application of the doctrine of waste. | 1 | 1910–1910 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.